I have a question about this whole idea of a "white working class" that operates as a generally monolithic block of voters in politics. It used to be that the "white working class" was essentially the same as the large number of white workers in manual or blue collar manufacturing jobs. But manufacturing as a segment of the labor force is on the decline, blame globalization and technological development. Today, your typical low-income white worker is in a bottom of the ladder white collar job or some other segment of the service industry. And the blue collar jobs that remain in America are more likely to be skilled, making them less likely to stack up on the bottom of the income ladder.

So we essentially have two white working classes. One is generally skilled and blue collar. Even if they aren't high-tech, they are skilled artisans who use ingenuity and creativity to fix problems and solve problems. They are just as valid members of the "Creative Class" as someone in computer graphics. But the other segment of the white working class is unskilled and stuck in low-level white collar jobs produced by the rise of a service industry linked to the creative economy.

The differences between these two groups are clear and many. For example, the unskilled white collar workings are directly competing in a global economy to the extent that their jobs can be outsourced or replaced by immigrant labor (legal or illegal). Skilled blue collar workers are more immune to such economic factors.

Okay, I had previously indicated that I would stay out of the Radical v Reform LP debate, posting that, by definition, a political party has to make compromises and forge coalitions. But observing the LP candidates now falling over each other issuing statements either condemning anarchism or rebutting charges that they are anarchists has led me to reconsider. Less Antman posted an article Monday on LRC that addressed this issue, proclaiming The Dallas Accord is Dead. Antman was motivated by Wayne Allen Root invoking the Dallas Accord in his criticism of Mart Ruwart's anarchist views and LP Presidential candidate Christine Smith going on a radio talk show and essentially calling for a purge of anarchists from the LP. Smith was particularly vile in her comments, quoting Ayn Rand in calling anarchists "collectivist, anti-intellectual scum." Her tirade went so far as to proclaim anarchism was a collectivist virus within the LP.

I'm sad to see we've got enough of these people in the LP, they are trying to control it, they are trying to get a presidential candidate...

Well, I'm sad to see that we have a dolt like Christine Smith who is able to parade around passing herself off as an authoritative adjudicator of libertarianism. I would be remiss not to point out to Christine Smith that Ayn Rand virtually condemned everyone, with the exception of GOP presidential candidates, of Objectivist heresy. Indeed Rand's own opinion of the Libertarian Party fell somewhere between her opinion of anarchists and George McGovern.

This whole business started when it became apparent that late-entry Mary Ruwart, a self-admitted Rothbardian Anarchist, had a shot at winning the LP nomination. Ruwart was a late entry because she had been volunteering for the Ron Paul campaign. Indeed, both Ruwart and her husband are long-time Paul activists. Ron Paul had returned the favor by previously recommending Ruwart, a Phd biochemist, for the post of FDA commissioner to President Bush.

Ruwart's convention strategy is going to rely heavily on making the case that she is best poised, both from her past activist history and from her own Rothbardian leanings, to capture and galvanize the Ron Paul Vote. However, she is facing a more sophisticated candidate pool this go around that certainly is not above engaging in opposition research to dredge up old book passages to discredit her. And, without doubt, the attacks Ruwart has had to endure illustrates the perils of anarchists trying to run for political office. Market anarchist theory of law, security, and justice doesn't translate very well into political campaigns or the political arena. Ambitious political opponents will eat it alive. As with love and war, there is nothing fair about politics. Unlike Ruwart, Ron Paul--Ruwart's mentor-- leaves it up to the subjective onlooker whether in his heart of hearts he is actually a Misean Statist or a Rothbardian Anarchist. Paul, I suppose, is smart enough as a politician not to really address that distinction in writing.

This whole dust up only exemplifies a larger contextual question of whether a diverse political and moral philosophy, which is what libertarianism really is, should be organized into a political party to begin with. The fact is that libertarianism cuts a wide ideological swath and encompasses a diverse set of competing schools of historical thought. It is true that NAP can be used as a sort of unifying principle in theory, but in practical application, all kind of cracks and fissures begin to manifest themselves.

For example, Statist-Libertarians view the State as a necessary monopoly provider of retaliatory force to enforce NAP violations against person or property and to provide a small set of non-excludable public goods, such as a national defense. However, Anarcho-Libertarians counter that the State, by nature, is a Redistributionist Coalition, and will, by logical necessity, expand in scope and size. This is the De Jasay argument reached from a rational choice methodology. The same conclusion can be reached however from a more dialectical Libertarian Class Theory perspective as well. Therefore the State necessarily is a net violator of NAP, it's violations far outweighing it's enforcements. Since the behavior of the State can be predicted theoretically and verified empirically without fail, this is a scientific conclusion. Anarcho-Libertarians make the charge that Statist-Libertarians suffer from the Ought-Is fallacy when it comes to the State. Statist-Libertarians will usually attempt to counter the anarchist framework for NAP argument typically using a combination of logical fallacies, such as Burden of Proof, Appeal to Fear, and Appeal to Common Practice. Finally, Statist-Libertarians may attempt to escape their dilemma by advocating a principle of secession, but, as Less Antman has pointed out, this reduces to a de facto anarchist position.

It is precisely because of the type of argument that I made above that a truce was made between the Anarcho-Libertarians and the Statist-Libertarians back in the 70s. Otherwise, the LP would just reduce to a debating society. However, the "truce" hardly prevented the Rothbard/Cato divorce from eventually leading to both coalitions abandoning the LP. The Catoites walked out in 1983. The Rothbardians abandoned the LP after Ron Paul's run in 1988, concluding that the LP was "too libertine." In both instances, I'm not necessarily referring to the rank and file but to the intellectual vanguards.

I think it's safe to say since the 90s the anarchist membership in the LP has steadily dwindled to where it's at an all-time low now. It's readily apparent that the LP continues to move in a direction that values election success and results over the educational role as "The Party of Principle." That's all well and good, but to the extent that the Party emasculates it's platform in an attempt to achieve marginally better electoral results, it will actually be sowing the seeds of it's own demise. Abandoning principle, purging radicals and anarchists, will only divorce the LP from the greater libertarian movement. The first time I hear some LP candidate utter the slogan "Compassionate Libertarianism," that will be the cue to abandon the LP ship. The real impediment to electoral success is our plurality voting systems and the electoral college, which serves to enforce a 2 party system. Rather than eviscerating the platform, the LP will be better served by aggressively partnering with the likes of the Green Party to work toward voting reform.

He will call off the Federal Dogs when it comes to Medical Marijuana.

The reason that the GOP Dog Food needs to be removed from the shelves is because it's been marinated in hot air for the last 8 years. This is comedic gold...

Kudos to former Congressman Barr for defending the ruling by the California Supreme Court striking down their ban on same-sex marriages.

"Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions or not ought to be a power each state exercises on its own, rather than imposition of a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government (as would be required by a Federal Marriage Amendment which has been previously proposed and considered by the Congress). The decision today by the Supreme Court of California properly reflects this fundamental principle of federalism on which our nation was founded.

"Indeed, the primary reason for which I authored the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 was to ensure that each state remained free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized within its borders, and not be forced to adopt a definition of marriage contrary to its views by another state. The decision in California is an illustration of how this principle of states' powers should work."

Marc Ambinder provides a good overview of the Internet revolution that Barack Obama will bring to the White House:

What Obama seems to promise is, at its outer limits, a participatory democracy in which the opportunities for participation have been radically expanded. He proposes creating a public, Google-like database of every federal dollar spent. He aims to post every piece of non-emergency legislation online for five days before he signs it so that Americans can comment. A White House blog—also with comments—would be a near certainty. Overseeing this new apparatus would be a chief technology officer.

Kudos to Governor Doyle of Wisconsin:

WisPolitics.com reports that Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle (D) plans to take more than $20 million out of the state’s REAL ID account and transfer it into the state’s general fund.

Hat tip to Cato at Liberty.

The Republican party is dealt their third defeat in a special election this year. Democrat Travis Childers joins Bill Foster and Don Cazayoux as a newly elected member of Congress and members of a small but growing number of Democrats elected by the early edge of the 2008 wave. There may be one more special election up in New York before November, another chance for the Democrats to show momentum heading into the fall. Things are not good in GOP land:

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), issued a somber and self-reflective statement following the loss, saying Republicans were “disappointed” and that they need to prepare to run against Democrats campaigning as conservatives.

“Though the Democrats’ task will be more difficult in a November election, the fact is they have pulled off two special election victories with this strategy” in Louisiana and Mississippi “and it should be a concern to all Republicans,” Cole said.

Cole added that “the political environment is such that voters remain pessimistic about the direction of the country and the Republican Party in general. Therefore, Republicans must undertake bold efforts to define a forward-looking agenda that offers the kind of positive change voters are looking for. This is something we can do in cooperation with our presidential nominee, but time is short.”

From David Sirota, an interesting poll of the voters of Wisconsin:

Who do you think would do a better job reforming the health care system, Wisconsin and the other states, or the federal government?

Wisconsin & Other States: 68%
Federal Government: 22%
Both Equally: 2%
Neither: 3%
Don't Know: 4%
Refused: <1%

Sirota draws from this hope for progressive reform at the state level that would work to push the envelope at the national state over time. Even though I disagree with his specific agenda, I agree with his conclusion about the importance of state politics:

The organization has had to fight an uphill battle not just against conservatives and the health care industry, but also against a conventional wisdom among progressive donors, Beltway elites, and even some blogospheric voices who are so enamored with the Washington game that they cannot see what the Right long ago figured out: namely, that states are often where the real action is, because Washington is rigged to prevent change. Clearly, the public is way ahead of the Washington-centric conventional wisdom - likely because the public lives out here in the real world, far away from the D.C. echo chamber that tells everyone in D.C. that what they are doing is more important than what anyone else is doing.